Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 08:55 AM) Let me give a counterexample...why is it so important that we "look forward" or whatever, rather than going back and prosecuting the entire financial industry? There are 50 million or so latinos living in this country and somewhere between 10-20 million illegal immigrants (obviously not all of them come from latin america, but good enough to first order). That means if you know 10 families with latino heritage, one of your neighbors is probably illegal. Or at the very least, was illegal at some point. Or your kid's friend is. Or you have a cousin who got deported. Or 5% of your kids school class, and your kid comes home asking if he or she is going to be deported. And on top of that, you pile on laws like Arizona and Alabama, racial profiling laws, or whatever the Proposition in California 2 decades ago was, where the state lumps everyone with non-white heritage in together and targets them for added searches and police harassment (and that's exactly what those laws are designed to do), and now you've put a target on the back of the whole community. This whole argument is a bunch of BS. Create a new information line on a drivers' license that states the status of your citizenship and this whole problem would be resolved. Make it a mandate for anyone that gets pulled over to offer that proof.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 16, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) The problem is that the legal way to do it has become so unnecessarily convoluted that it prevents most people from legal immigration. You see people forget that back in the late 19th and early 20th century, all you had to do was get off a boat, and you were allowed to legally immigrate here. You didnt have to get on a waiting list, hope your number was pulled etc. Im not the child of an immigrant, I am 3rd generation. But if it wasnt for the American immigration policies of those eras, its likely that I would not exist, as a good part of my family would have been killed in World War II. People forget that during the 1930s the US created laws that were anti-capitalism and isolationism/protectonism ruled the day. If the law itself is unjust, then those who break the law are not criminals. If it is against the law for a black man to drink water from a white water fountain, we do not consider the man who breaks that law a criminal or deserving of punishment, we consider that individual a freedom fighter. Just like immigrants today, who fight for the freedom to immigrate to the best country in the world. We do not have the right to deny other people the ability to come to the US for a better life. Every human deserves the chance to live in the US if they want to. And to answer the question, yes we accept everyone who wants to come here who is not a criminal or does not have a disease. It is just as simple as that, the only reason most of us are here, is because those who came before, were generous enough to give our families a chance. Its just hypocrisy. People also forget that back in those days you weren't guaranteed any assistance from the government. It wasn't expected that you could come here with your 4 kids and demand free healthcare, education and financial assistance. Now that is the expectation. Come here, work, send all of your money back home and live off the system.

lol, i got sucked into it while playing a game. NOT worth it. So lame.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 02:47 PM) No, but I have little issue with regulating where and when they can be used. For example, if you're using one while driving, you've put other people at increased risk, taken away their rights, and that's something we might want to avoid. If you could illustrate a practical method by which removing smart phones from people's hands/pockets while on the street would substantially decrease the crime rate, I'd listen. But of course, that's not going to happen, because any time people take an item of nonzero value outside, it's possible for it to be stolen. It would be just as sensible to ban automobiles because they might be stolen. The point of course also differs in another way. If I try to rob someone on the street, I'm unlikely to try to steal a concealed weapon from them. Thus, the setup and motivation is fundamentally different. And smartphones, cars, money, etc., presumably everything else you'd be carrying that could be stolen, would likely be expected to have some use other than killing people. Guns have the same types of restrictions and more of them. And iphones/smart phones are not normal luxury items (as we've argued before, they're not a luxury but a necessity!) like a car. It's a specific item that, at least here in Chicago, criminals are targeting. And they're doing it in systematic fashion at the same types of public areas (public transit/public transit stations). It's now a dangerous object to carry around because of that target. It's still a "thing" that has increased crime merely for possessing it, just like having a gun is supposedly increasing crime merely for owning/carrying it around. And I obviously don't agree that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.

Make sure you check which i5 chip you get. Third generations just came out and they are the fastest. If it's the first generation shop around. You might get better bang for your buck.

Balta, I was thinking of something on my drive in this morning re: our discussion of guns increasing/escalating crime. By your same logic, shouldn't we ban iphones/smart phones? If you carry an iphone/smart phone, the data would show (if a report would ever be conducted) an increase in criminal activity relating to people carrying iphones/smart phones. Shouldn't we ban them for the safety of all individuals? And before you say it's not to the same degree of harm, keep in mind a victim last year died as a result of an attack over an iphone.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) Everytime the government takes half of my check I feel physically ill. That's your personal responsibility though.

Hmm, so an executive ordered amnesty program, and he's not taking questions? If Bush pulled this move we'd be hearing about it non-stop for 7 days. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...ion_speech.html

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) I feel like they are pulling it out of their ass and probably picked a killer 2 months ago. This show has zero accountability as no real clues are leading to the eventual killer. It'll just be "oh ok, so that guy/gal did it." I can't believe I still watch the show. Agreed. I'm in the same boat. It really angers me that Linden and Holder are doing so much illegal s*** too. Even if they eventually find out who the killer is, they've completely f***ed any chance of a case against them. The entire ID card thing made absolutely no sense. Why on earth not just pick it up and say "ah ha!" right there. Stupid. And like they wouldn't have checked the ferry vehicle records on the first day investigating the case? They wouldn't have noticed that the campaign car had gone to the casino, signed by Gwen? And what's worse, they've been to the casino before, so they've known about the whole "sign in/sign out" thing for weeks. They just now conveniently thought, hey, lets check to see if that car came on the ferry. Asinine.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 12:01 PM) lol, what's the story behind that reaction? Any idea?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) Awesome man. Congrats & good luck. Don't worry about the costs, your kid will pay you back eventually when he helps with your retirement home bill. Thanks. I keep telling my wife we need to groom him to be a professional golfer. That way he can pay for my retirement AND I'll have access to sweet equipment and courses.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) He'd run out of old, fat, Superfan jokes really quick and then there'd be nothing left for him to talk about. Yeah, i'm sure it'd get old. Maybe he just needs to do a traveling show. I feel like when he's on the road he does better bits. The thing with him singing the blues with kids was also great.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) Dude, shut up. It's not about being right or wrong. And I've never claimed to be some kinda genius. This thread is horrible. I can't even learn anything from this thread when i'm sober. I didn't even see the game last night and i knew that once i came here that soxbadger and the rest of the gang would be crying about the refs over and over and over and over and over again. It's pathetic. Lol, is this crack or something? If you don't like it why do you read it?

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) I don't know if this was posted here before but Brad Daugherty chimes in on the percieved help from the refs the Heat get. http://m.deadspin.com/5915178/espns-brad-d...--the-officials It's not only Bulls fans who think Miami gets special treatment from the officials, go to any NBA forum and people from every NBA team fanbase are complaining. Last night wasn't so bad but I would love to see OKC get the same calls Miami did last night. It's that bulls***, unspoken favoritism for superstars. But it's not applied across the board evenly (Durant, Rose, etc.) Seriously, if people don't think the refs are given a nudge, nudge, wink wink, "we'd prefer a 6-7 game series" from NBA execs, they're delusional. There are WAY too many judgment calls in a game that can change the pacing and thereby change the result. Last night Durant got 2 ticky tack fouls on him in the first quarter. Not surprisingly, the Heat got out to a big lead. Those same fouls aren't called at all in the 3rd and 4th. I actually started to watch MJ's flu game last night and the same thing happened to Jeff Hornacek. Two fouls in about 4 trips down the court. Changed the course of the game. Man though, they used to FOUL back in the day. You basically had to tackle someone to be called for something.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) When they do those calculations, what exactly do they include for housing? I mean, you have to pay for a home, kids or no kids. Maybe you buy an extra bedroom or two? Yeah I wondered that as well, but perhaps it's going from a one bedroom to a two type valuation. I think out of that 235k, only 70k was for housing. That's only an extra $4,117 per year. My wife is due tomorrow, so our first will be here any day now. The costs are freakin' me out.

Here you go Balta: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/20...up-to-235k.html

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 10:43 AM) I would disagree with the above. When we are hiring we put it out in the law schools database, but we also post it on Craiglist and other sites as well. Just because you dont have access to a big school network, doesnt mean you cant get access to job postings. You need to utilize every available resource. I got mine from craigslist, but that's 100% luck of the draw that they happened to see my resume before getting another (seriously) 250+ in a day. They just printed off the first 10 and went from there.

"you know why you work for tips? because no one will stick the whole thing in" LOL. Conan should just do his show here from now on.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 12:46 AM) Am i the only one who watches The Borgias? Just caught up on Sunday's episode. Great stuff. I'm glad I hadn't already known about the final scene of the episode. With historically accurate shows, I tend to find myself looking ahead on Wikipedia to find out what becomes of the characters, but I'm glad I didn't know this twist. I think you and I are the only ones. I haven't watched the last one though so no spoilers. My only complaint with the show is that Lucrezia needs to get naked more. Otherwise it's pretty good.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 07:12 AM) I love how you act like you dont contribute to the "wack" that you speak of Just remember the Knicks will be the 2012 NBA Champions.

I was able to test out of taking math courses and foreign language courses. I had nearly a semester's worth of credits before stepping foot on campus.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 01:08 PM) And he's had alot of good ones since the year 2000 that was mentioned above. Filmography since 2000: little Nicky The Animal Joe Dirt Mr Deeds Master of disguise Eight crazy nights The Hot Chick Anger Management Dickie Roberts 50 first dates The Longest Yard Deuce Bigelow Euro Grandma's boy The Benchwarmers Click Chuck and Larry Reign Over me strange wilderness House Bunny Dont mess with Zohan Bedtime stories Paul Blart Shortcut Funny People and then the ones above. Some stinkers, some gems. Just like the film industry in general. There really isn't a good one in that list IMO, and he wasn't in all of those (at least not as a main character). The only one he was the lead in that was decent was 50 First Dates, and that was him being a normal goof, not some over the top weirdo.

It's like he forgot it's not 2000 anymore.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) Yeah, he'll be groggy the first day and pissed at you the second day. After that they are quick healers. Update on me: We did put my dog down last friday, it was sad but necessary. The poor pup lost his mind and didnt know who any of us were. Cognitive degenerative disease. That sucks dude. I'm dreading the day I lose my Boston and she's only 6. Dogs are so amazing and offer so much to your daily life, even if they can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 07:45 PM) No, it means we're struggling with percentages. It means that 0.2 of the 2 dead people per day are counted as justifiable homicides under these laws. If they were only using pre-05 data, you'd have a point. However, what you do is compare the same states pre-and-post "SYG" law, and then you also compare those states to states that don't have SYG laws, and you also compare states based on when they enacted the SYG law. That's how you can evaluate whether a trend is statistically significant. But the problem is in relying on the classification of the homicide instead of what actually happened. They even admit that using the FBI definition is bogus because none of the states classify the "crime" in the same way. So it's left up to how individual state prosecutors decide to charge a person based on their own version of the SYG law. The better study would be to look at who successfully used the defense and who did not (guilty/not guilty) and then analyze if it was truly a "without provocation" type situation. Unless I missed it in skimming over the report, it seemed to me they were relying on those classifications made by the states, not the specific factual scenario at play (because again, once the SYG laws came into effect, anyone who could reasonably argue self-defense under SYG did, so there's going to be an increase in "SYG" homicide numbers.)